LawProf is the nom de plume of the anonymous blogger at Inside the Law School Scam who claims to be "a tenured mid-career faculty member at a Tier One school" purportedly exposing legal education as a "scam."
His identity (and in this instance I use the pronoun to indicate gender) is now pretty widely known (or, perhaps, assumed to be _________. Larry Ribstein recently replied to his claims in a more professional way than he deserves.
ScamProf is the failed academic who has done almost no scholarly work in the last decade, teaches the same courses and seminars year in and year out, and spends his time trying to attract public attention, sometimes under his own name, this time anonymously. These are important facts about ScamProf, since he is indeed scamming his students and his state, and his initial posts were tantamount to a confession that he's not doing his job. His colleagues, in any case, now know who he is, and are quite understandably angry, since the reckless genearlizations are naturally read as commentary on them. ... When his identity comes out, there will be additional ironies that will warrant comment.
Brian's talent for invective remains unmatched. I enjoy it even when it's directed at your truly, although not quite as much when it's directed at somebody like ScamProf.
The thing that puzzles me is: Why has nobody outed the dude? As Leiter put it the other day, his identity is obvious (although not to me, but that's just because I was too lazy to put two and two together).
My colleague Eugene Volokh thinks there are serious ethical issues involved in outing anonymous bloggers. I don't. I agree with Michael Krauss' take on an earlier case when Ed Whelan an anonymous blogger on Obsidian Wings as professor John Blevins of South Texas School of Law.
Incredibly, Blevins has defended his anonymous sniping as ethical: he didn't want to get in trouble with his law school, he didn't want to embarrass his family, he didn't want to offend his students. What Blevins didn't want to do, sez me, is take responsibility for his opinions. When you attack someone by name, you name yourself -- we are not in revolutionary times where the original Publius could go appropriately unnamed.
On the substantive debate between Blevins and Whelan, I think Whelan easily has the upper hand, but readers can decide this for themselves. On the propriety of hiding behind a pseudonym while sniping at a critic who is out in the open, I see no redeeming argument.
I have no personal proof of Lawprof's identity. But if those who do decide to out him, I'll applaud.
BTW, I'm closing comments on this post so as to preclude uninformed speculation as to LawProf's identity.